5 ms·
Not per capita. The US is still the worst large country. If you account for offshoring manufacturing then the US looks even worse. https://ourworldindata.org/c
by renjimen 8mo ago
Not per capita. The US is still the worst large country. If you account for offshoring manufacturing then the US looks even worse.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
- reducesuffering 8mo agoWhy should should per-capita be most important? If country A keeps their population stable and emissions under control, but country B of the same starting population, keeps doubling their population and doubling their emissions, why should country A have an increasingly declined allowance of emissions when they were more responsible in keeping their total emissions down (by not having as many people)?
- hiccuphippo 8mo agoBecause some countries pay others to pollute in their stead?
- layer8 8mo agoChina has a declining population, and had a one-child policy for many years. Also, you don’t want all the low-population countries to each start contributing as much to global warming as the US.
- shoxidizer 8mo agoIf country B splits into countries C, D, E and F, all of which emit less than country A, has it found an effective way to reduce emissions? Should all countries adopt the Monaco lifestyle to defeat global warming? I guess if you want to find a fair way to measure administration of land you could emmisions per hectare or rainfall.
- Scarblac 8mo agoBecause per capita is the only thing that makes sense. If China were to split into 10 countries each emitting 10% of what they do now it'd be the exact same emissions, but according to you it would be much better. Similarly if the EU would become one country, that country would be high up on the list, much higher than member countries now! Oh no! Looking at per capita emissions is much more fair. Anyway, China's emissions are falling since last year ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... ). What's the US doing?
- chucksta 8mo agoIt can't realistically be solved at a per capita level though
- Scarblac 8mo agoMaybe we should start trying before we conclude that.
- renjimen 8mo agoIndividuals can of course make choices to reduce their emissions, Americans more than most since they're starting higher. Buy less new stuff, eat less meat, fly less, etc. But policy is where real change needs to be made, and the effects of policy still scale with population in most cases.
- markdown 8mo agoBecause country A just outsourced their emission production to country B.
- rayiner 8mo agoThe climate doesn’t care about per capita obviously.
- renjimen 8mo agoClimate doesn't care about political borders either. But per capita is more informative when thinking about policy for curbing emissions, which is how we actually change our effect on the climate.
- Hikikomori 8mo agoThe rest of the world produces more than china. Checkmate.
- triceratops 8mo agoI guess partisanship blinds even otherwise intelligent people to logic and makes them repeat nonsense. The climate "cares" about cumulative emissions. On that score the US is by far the leader. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions It's not even close. Pretend China is 20 countries. Each country now has lower emissions than the US. Anyone can play that stupid game. Give up the games, think about solutions. China is working hard. Are we?